successful Mentorship programmes: Perspectives on Sustainable land reform in South African Agriculture

Transcription

1 Research Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences E-ISSN Crafting and Implementing successful Mentorship programmes: Perspectives on Sustainable land reform in South African Agriculture Abstract Mabe Royal Department of Agricultural Economics, Education and Extension, Botswana College of Agriculture, Gaborone, Botswana Available online at: Received 12 th November 2015, revised 19 th January 2016, accepted 3 rd February 2016 Land reform is one of the landmark policy initiatives implemented on the auspices of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) by the new African National Congress (ANC)-led government in South Africa (SA), following the April 1994 democratic elections. Land reform was therefore, envisioned as a policy instrument to enablee previously disadvantaged individuals to own land and engage in commercial agricultural production. Inadvertently, a new generation of emerging black farmers who benefit from the state ss land redistribution program find themselves without sufficient post-settlement and institutional support. The government has therefore, formalized mentorship as part of post-settlement support services in order to equip the emerging farmers with the necessary technical, business and resource management skills required to engage in sustainable commercial agriculture. This paper discusses the need for mentorship in the South African agriculture, citing some of the mentorship programs that the SA government has to date, supported in agriculture. It then highlights some of the lessons that could be learnt from previous mentorship programs in SA agriculture, proposes a model on how to develop and implement mentorship programs and ends with a summary. Keywords: Mentorship, Land Reform, Commercial Agriculture, Emerging Farmer. Introduction New reform policy initiatives introducedd by the African National Congress (ANC)-led government after the 1994 democratic elections, were aimed at promoting reconstruction and development, more especially in the agrarian sector 1. Land reform is one of the initiatives that the new ANC government has promised to enable previously disadvantaged individuals (PDIs) access to land and engage in commercial agriculture. PDIs are defined here as people in South Africa who were previously excluded from land markets due to racial segregation. The land reform program is facilitated by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (RDLR) and has three subdivisions; redistribution, restitution and land tenure. The mandate of the land reform process is to transfer 30% (about 24.9 million hectares) of white-owned farmland to PDIs by Lahiff 6 noted that the new ANC government adopted a land reform policy based on reliance on market mechanisms (i.e. the willing-seller/ willing-buyer principle), respect for private property and tightly controlled public spending. However, Lahiff 5 observed that after 14 years of democracy in South Africa (SA), there is consensus across the political and social spectrum that the state s land reform programme has fallen short of delivering its mandate. Furthermore, Aliber and Mokoena 7 reported that some proponents of the government land reform blame the willing-seller/ willing-buyer principle for the slow pace of the land redistribution programme. Other factors attributed to the slow progress in the land reform include lack of capacity (i.e. in terms of quantity and quality) in the national and provincial offices of DLA and the Commission of the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) and poor and/or inadequate post-settlement support 6,5. Mokhatla et al 8 caution that the settlement of new farmers in South Africa (SA) has to be done not just for the handing of land over to the landless, but with the aim of attaining the goals of sustainable land reform. However, lack of pre and post-settlement support to the land reform beneficiaries undermines the efforts of the land reform program 2-4,9. Kirsten et al 10 noted that support services to participants are often inadequate, unsequenced and un-coordinated. Mentorship has therefore been identified as an important element of professional training and capacity development that could be used to develop talent in the new SA Hence, the need to institutionalize formal mentorship programmes and incorporate them into support services for settling emerging commercial black farmers. Formal mentorship could therefore, empower the new entrant farmers with the much-needed basic technical, business and resource management skills required to successfully operate modern farms. Additionally, the emerging farmers find themselves without appropriate institutional structures and extension services. Mentorship could therefore, be an ideal vehicle to address the shortcomings of extension services and thus complement the latter. International Science Community Association 17

2 Literature review: Many authors have defined and described mentoring in various ways. Rivza et al 17 argued that the word mentoring is derived from the word Mentor in Greek Mythology. The authors highlighted that a mentor was an old wise and experienced man, on whom Odysseus entrusted his son s education and development. They define mentoring as a voluntary and interactive relationship in the context of a winwin situation, between an experienced person (the mentor) who agrees to help and support another less experienced person (the mentee), in order for the latter to succeed in his or her endeavours. The SA National Department of Agriculture (NDA) has adapted two non-sector specific definitions of the word mentoring. That is: i. mentoring exists when suitably experienced and competent persons act as resources, sponsors and transitional figures for another person. Hence, mentors provide less experienced persons with knowledge, advice, challenge and support in their pursuit of becoming full members of a particular segment of life. Mentors welcome less experienced persons into their world and represent skill, knowledge, networks and success that the new professionals hope to someday acquire, or; ii. mentoring is a process of forming a relationship between a more experienced and seasoned person (mentor) and a less experienced person (mentee), where the mentor assists the mentee to achieve a specific goal or develop a specified capacity 18. Mentorship in the South African agriculture: Formal mentoring has the potential to be an important farmer capacity developmental tool in the SA commercial agriculture, given the empowerment policies introduced by the new ANC government (such as AgriBEE and land reform). AgriBEE refers to black economic empowerment (BEE) in agriculture. The broad-based BEE Act was enacted in 2004 to promote PDIs access to productive resources and enhance economic growth and equitable income distribution. However, the SA government s efforts to empower PDIs is not only restricted to agriculture, but includes other sectors of the economy such as mining, manufacturing, and government departments. However, lack of appropriate sector-specific skills has been a common feature among PDIs. Hall et al 9 noted that research conducted in SA has revealed that little attention has been paid to post-transfer support and issues relating to the sustainability of beneficiaries. Thomson and Bates 3 cautioned that the changing demographics in the SA sugar industry would present challenges to the capacity and means through which support services are provided in the future. Hence, the industry s unique and generally wellcoordinated services need to create an environment which is conducive for the success of the new entrant black commercial farmers (through proper post land transfer support, training and mentoring). Thomson and Gillitt 4 added that the new black farmers generally do no have agricultural or business background. As a result, these inexperienced farmers without the necessary agronomic, financial and labour management skills may mismanage their farms within a few seasons/years following acquisition. Street and Kleynhans 19 also reported that the composition of commercial farmers in SA is changing and will continue to change due to the emergence of black farmers. Hence, new demands on agricultural extension services, agricultural authorities and other stakeholders in the agriculture sector. Incidentally, the SA government s efforts to promote PDIs engagement in commercial agriculture has been negatively affected by lack of post-transfer support to the emerging farmers and their lack of experience and skills in agriculture, business, financial, and labour management 9,3. Formal mentorship may address the skills shortage amongst the new black farmers and thus properly integrate them into commercial agriculture,2,3,9, Accordingly, various formal and informal state and private funded mentorship has to date been reported in some industries in the agriculture sector, namely; sugar, citrus, beef, ostrich, horticulture and field crop production (Table-1). It is therefore, evident that there are lessons that could be drawn from the mentorship relationships discussed above. More importantly, these lessons could inform policy makers on how best to develop and implement future programmes in the SA agriculture, and thus optimize the desired benefits. Table-1 Examples of programmes in the SA agriculture Industry Province Source Citrus Western Cape Brodie 25 Beef Limpopo and North West Lawrence 26 Crops Limpopo Botes 27 Ostrich Eastern Cape Erasmus 28, Burgess 29 Sugarcane Kwazulu Natal Xaba 24 Lessons that could be drawn from previous mentorship programmes: Some lessons that could be drawn from the SA mentorship programmes include 21,24,30 : Government and private funding or sponsorship of mentorship programs is vital for program sustainability (e.g. both the New Freehold Growers (NFG) and CGA mentorship programmmes were funded by the government; Committed and enthusiastic mentees who are willing to participate in the programme and implement plans agreed with the mentor; Mentors and mentees being knowledgeable about the programme objectives; Providing programme participants with guidelines; Clarity on the roles of both mentees and mentors; and Having a wellstructured programme that strives to address the needs of the mentees. International Science Community Association 18

3 Incorporating lessons learnt from previous mentorship programmes may also promote sustainable land reform, emerging farmer capacity development and sound crafting and implementation of agrarian sector reform policies, and thus enhance the competitive edge of SA agriculture both regionally and internationally. A framework on how to develop and implement mentorship programs in SA agriculture: SA agriculture can adopt the following best practices when designing and implementing mentoring programmes. Figure-1 illustrates a conceptual model for developing and implementing mentorship programmes. Needs analysis: According to Botha, Kiley and Truman 31, needs analysis is a systematic collection and evaluation of information in order to find gaps in the existing competency levels, knowledge and attitudes of employees. The purpose of this phase is therefore, to gather evidence which justify and support arguments in favour of the proposed mentorship. Needs assessment can be done at three levels, including the industry/organisation, the task/job and the individual, and can identify: An industry/organisation s goals and its effectiveness in reaching these goals, conditions under which the intervention (mentorship) program will occur and where training is needed (industry/organisational analysis); Gaps between current skills, knowledge and competency levels, and the skills knowledge and competencies required to perform current and future tasks successfully and what needs to be taught (task/job analysis); and who needs to be trained (person analysis) 31,32. Ideally, information gathering is done by a task team or an advisory committee in-charge of the mentorship program. The advisory committee advises the industry/organisation about the consequences of progressing or not progressing with the envisioned intervention programme. Werner and DeSimone 32 argued that the advisory committee should consist of members from across the industry/organisation. A broader level of representation and support from all parts of the industry/organisation offer varying perspectives on the industry s human resource development needs. Assuming that a needs assessment yields multiple needs that a mentorship programme should address, the committee, management and the other relevant stakeholders must then prioritise these needs. Resources such as skilled personnel, facilities, equipment, materials and funds should also be mobilised towards program design. Program design: Following needs analysis, the task team would be faced with questions such as: Is this an issue that can and should be addressed through mentoring?, If mentoring is necessary, do we have the capacity to design and implement the program in-house or should we outsource some services?, How do we select and match mentors and mentees?, Which areas/locations do we start with and why?, Are there particular scheduling issues that should be taken into account when designing the mentorship program (i.e. most agricultural products are seasonal and mentoring could be more beneficial if aligned with farm production activities)? Furthermore, after a needs analysis the industry/organisation may have detailed information which indicates: Where intervention/training is needed (i.e. in the citrus or sugarcane industry); Whether mentoring alone and/or other forms of training and capacity development are needed (i.e. whether agricultural extension should complement mentoring); who needs to be trained (i.e. emerging black beef farmers); and conditions under which mentoring will occur (i.e. a formal mentoring program). The main activities involved in designing a mentorship program may include: setting objectives, outlining key focus/result areas, drawing program guidelines, program length, frequency of meetings and remuneration of mentors. Werner and DeSimone 32 noted that program objectives must have three critical aspects: i. Performance (what mentees should be able to do/or produce to be considered competent); ii. Conditions under which performance should occur (e.g. formal or informal); and iii. The criteria (where possible) of acceptable performance on how mentees must perform in order to be considered competent. The key performance/result areas on which the program participants need to improve/acquire new knowledge, skills and competencies, should be based on the needs analysis. Table-2 shows some key result areas in a typical mentorship program for the emerging black sugarcane farmers in South Africa. The program guidelines would provide information on how to deal with various aspects relating to selection and matching of mentors and mentees, mentors and mentees roles, program length, the frequency of meetings between coordinator and mentors and/or between mentors and mentees and how mentors will be paid. According to Cranwell-Ward et al 33, once the overall program approach has been defined and outlined, the task team should consider other practical components that will support the entire process. These may include clarifying the roles and responsibilities of other key industry stakeholders; defining qualities to look for in mentors; determining what training is required by mentors; and what should be done if the relationship fails. The task team also determines and outlines the evaluation criteria and other monitoring tools (such as monthly reports) and how often evaluation would be done. Empowerment of the program participants: Kotter 34 observed that transformation initiatives often fail because people have not been empowered to act on the vision of the initiative either due to lack of communication or the presence of current systems/structures that undermine the intervention. An orientation session is therefore vital for the mentors and mentees. Mentors could be offered training in diversity management so that they would be better prepared to deal with a diverse pool of mentees. The mentees may be diverse in terms International Science Community Association 19

4 of culture, gender, race and religion. Hence, cross-cultural (i.e. whites mentoring blacks) and cross-gender (i.e. males mentoring females) mentoring is likely to be more prevalent in the SA agriculture because the agriculture sector is maledominated and the black farmers are in most cases mentored by white farmers. The program design phase provides management and the task team an opportunity to clarify any underlying issues and communicate the objectives, guidelines, benefits/consequences of implementing/not implementing the mentorship program, to the mentors and mentees again. Further communication may increase a sense of urgency on the part of mentors and mentees and a better understanding of what is expected of them, thus ensuring more commitment towards program delivering. Program implementation, maintenance and further development: Ideally, a mentorship program should initially be rolled out on a small scale (pilot program). A pilot program gives management, other stakeholders and policy makers an opportunity to understand and appreciate the pertinent issues about the program and make changes (where necessary) before a nation/industry-wide program is launched. After implementing the program, the task team or the coordinator should promptly address problems as they arise. Moreover, program maintenance could be in the form of various support activities to the mentors and mentees such as regular contact, formal and informal program reviews, sharing success stories and experiences, additional training of mentors and guiding them on how to deal with difficult personal situations. Hattingh et al 35 reiterated that an effective mentoring programme follows a lifecycle, and as the relationship draws to a close, it is very important for it to be concluded properly. Organisations may therefore, be motivated to expand the program further, in the event where mentorship has achieved the desired outcomes. The program also stands to grow naturally as the former mentees may become the next generation of mentors and participate in future programs. Previous research by Clutterbuck and Sweeney cited by Hattingh et al 35 reported that mentoring programs that do not deliver results share the following failures: Poor planning and preparation; inadequate training of participants; low clarity on roles and responsibilities of mentor and mentee (i.e. who does what?); and inadequate support from top management. ASSESS DESIGN EMPOWER IMPLEMENT EVALUATE Needs Assessment Organisational/ Industry Task/job Person Define objectives Key focus areas Guidelines: Program length Meetings Mentor remuneration Evaluation criteria Communicate program objectives and guidelines to the participants Mentee orientation and training of mentors Communication Deliver the mentorship program Select evaluation criteria Determine evaluation design Conduct program evaluation Interpret and report the results Prioritise needs Figure-1 A Conceptual framework for the development and implementation of mentorship Programs, Adapted from Werner and DeSimone 32 International Science Community Association 20

5 Table-2 Key focus areas for a typical mentorship program for the emerging black sugarcane farmers in South Africa Key Focus Areas Financial management Budgeting Tax-reporting book keeping Cash management and flow Technical/Cane agronomic aspects Labour management Marketing Ratoon management, weeds and disease control Sugarcane varieties land preparation and planting Statutory labour requirements Supervision and dispute resolution Sugarcane prices Transport to the mill Program evaluation: Evaluation plays a fundamental role in any project. Project evaluation can be of twofold, namely: i. ex ante and ii. ex post. Ex ante evaluation is done before the programme is launched, through needs analysis and a pilot program. Ex ante evaluation therefore, seeks to determine and justify the program need and how best to implement it and optimise the desired benefits. On the contrary, ex post evaluation is carried out when the program is running. It is therefore, an on-going monitoring process which involves establishing whether: the participants are developing appropriate relationships, proposed benefits are being delivered or have been met, participants are motivated and that problems are identified and resolved3 6, Consequently, ex post evaluation has three key elements: i. Continuous (on-going process which establish if all is going as planned), ii. Impact-oriented (are the expected benefits being achieved?), and iii. proactive (identifies problems and resolve them as they arise). Botha et al 31 added that evaluation is a set of planned, information gathering and analytical activities undertaken to provide management and those responsible for the intervention program with an assessment of the program s quality and impact. Cranwell-Ward et al 33 observed that it is not only necessary to have a formal evaluation and review structure in place at the end of the mentoring programme. It is also important to have an on-going review process as part of the programme maintenance activities. Both on-going and post programme review enhances the overall evaluation of the programme. Hence, an objective strategy that employs multiple methods to obtain both quantitative (objective, numerical) and qualitative data (subjective, non-numerical) should be in place at the beginning of the program life (i.e. during the program design phase). Subsequently, evaluation of mentorship programs in the SA agriculture could establish: i. The participants reaction to the program; ii. If what was learned is/has been transferred at farm level (transfer of learning); iii. The program impact and costs; iv. How future programs could be improved. Data collection for evaluation could be done through structured questionnaires with a set of questions intended to assess participants perceptions and opinions about the program. Focus group discussions may also be an important tool for mentorship program evaluation, and thus complement questionnaires. Krueger cited by Litoselliti 40 describes a focus group as a carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment where, the participants share and respond to comments, ideas and perceptions. Krueger and Casey cited by Israel and Gonzalez 41 noted that although focus groups were previously used in the private sector to conduct market research, extension professionals now use the technique to design programs and assess outcomes. Israel and Gonzalez 41 added that focus groups are now frequently used because the interviews can yield rich, qualitative information which can be used to identify what should be done, what worked and what did not. This information can then help policy makers identify ways in which to improve the program. Litoselliti 40 argued that, unlike interviews and participant observation, focus groups: i. present a more natural environment as participants are influenced by others; and ii. offer some flexibility and can be used with emphasis either on intervention (entails more formal and structured groups) or observation (which may result in exploratory, qualitative, naturalistic or interpretative groups). Conclusion The landscape of the South African agriculture is being reshaped by extensive land and agrarian reform policy initiatives introduced by the ANC government since The agriculture sector has and is still experiencing an increasing demand for extension, advisory services and post-settlement support services offered to the land reform beneficiaries. The majority of the beneficiaries lack commercial farming experience and skills. Mentorship has therefore, been identified as a capacity development tool to address skill gaps amongst the emerging black farmers. However, researchers and policy makers have cautioned that institutionalised mentorship should not replace extension, but should rather complement it. In the former, mentors provide hands-on experience, moral support, counselling and promote transfer of learning. Extension on the International Science Community Association 21

6 other hand, provides theoretical explanation and logic on various aspects in agriculture. Hence, in the context of the South African agriculture, the proposed mentorship program implementation model emphasises adoption of best practices. The model incorporates some key elements and fundamental aspects such a needs assessment, program design, implementation and evaluation. However, the proposed model is by no means definitive. It merely starts an interrogation of the purpose, functions and steps for implementing mentorship programs. More importantly, the proposed model further opens discussions on: diversity mentoring (more especially cross cultural mentoring); how to deal with soft human relations issues which might be unique to the South African setup (such as trust and previous power relations which were racially based) and how to incorporate them into large scale mentorship programs; and how in a pragmatic manner, put emphasis on nation building, reconstruction and reconciliation issues on which the principle of mentorship is founded, without compromising the sustainability and competitiveness SA agriculture. References 1. Van Rooyen C.J. and Botha C.A.J. (1994). Agricultural Extension and Small Farmer Development in South Africa: Problems and Proposals. SA Journal of Agricultural Extension, 21, Armstrong D. (2004). Financing, Viability and Costs Associated with Transferring Sugarcane Land to Previously Disadvantaged Individuals. Proceedings of 78 th South African Sugar Technologists Association Conferences. Durban, South Africa, Thomson D.N. and Bates R.F. (2005). Creating an Environment for Success by Land Redistribution: Some Challenges for the Sugar Industry. Proceedings of 79 th South African Sugar Technologists Association Conference. Durban, South Africa, Thomson R. and Gillit C. (2007). The Land Reform Process in South Africa with Emphasis on Land Restitution. Proceedings of the 16 th International Farm Management Association Congress, Cork, Ireland, Lahiff E. (2008). Land Reform in South Africa: A Status Report Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western Cape, Research Report No Lahiff E. (2001). Land Reform in South Africa: Is it Meeting the Challenge? Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western Cape, Policy Brief No.1, 7. Aliber M. and Mokoena R. (2002). Land Reform and Agrarian Change in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western Cape, Occasional Paper Series No Mokhatla P.Z. Nell W.T. and Wilhem T. (2005). Strategies for Successfully Settling Farmers in South Africa. Proceedings of the 15 th International Farm Management Association Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, Hall R., Jacobs P. and Lahiff E. (2003). Western Cape Sector Efficacy Review. Retrieved May 29, 2008 from ncy_review.pdf. 10. Kirsten J., Van Zyl J. and Sartorius von Bach H.J. (1993). The Role of Extension in Traditional Agriculture: Evidence from the Farmer Support Programme. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 22, Clutterbuck D. and Abbott P. (2003). Mentoring as an empowerment tool. People Dynamics, 21(4), Steinemann N. (2003), Learning from the Lions. People Dynamics, 21(4), Vinassa A. (2003). Be my Mentor. People Dynamics, 21(5) Janse van Rensburg K. and Roodt G. (2005). A Normative Instrument for Assessing the Mentoring Role. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(3) Ortmann G.F. (2005). Promoting Competitiveness of South African Agriculture in a Dynamic and Economic and Political Environment: F.R. Tomlinson Commemorative Lecture. Agrekon, 44(3), National Department of Agriculture (NDA). (2005a). Norms and Standards for Extension and Advisory Services in Agriculture. Pretoria: South Africa. 17. Rivza B., Kruzmetra M. and Konstantinova E. (2007). The Efficiency of Mentoring Programs for Rural Entrepreneurship. Economic Science for Rural Development, 12, National Department of Agriculture (NDA). (2005b). Farmer Mentorship: Policy and Guidelines. Pretoria, South Africa. 19. Street K. and Kleynhans T.E. (1996). A Formal Mentorship Programme for Emerging Farmers in the Western Cape. SA Journal of Agricultural Extension, 29(25), Darroch M.A.G. and Mashatola M.C. (2003). Sugarcane Grower s Perceptions of a Graduated Loan Repayment Scheme to Buy Farmland in KwaZulu-Natal. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review [Online], 5(4), Olubode-Awolosa O.O. and Van Schalkwyk H.D. (2006). Mentorship Alliance between South African Farmers: Implications of Sustainable Agriculture. South African Journal of Economic and Management Science, 9(4), International Science Community Association 22

7 22. Hawes A. and Bates R. (2007a). What is Mentoring and why are we doing it? South African Fruit Journal, South African Canegrowers Association (SACGA). (2008). South African Canegrowers 2007/08 Annual Report. Durban, South Africa. 24. Xaba N. (2008). A Good Mentor! The Cane Grower, [Online], 14(9). Retrieved March 25, 2010 from Brodie L. (2005). Trevor Abrahams: Emerging Stone Fruit Farmer From Ceres. SA Journal of Fruit, Lawrence J. (2005). African Herdsmen Raise Their Sights. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Report, Research Report No. 0507ACIAR. 27. Botes S. (2007). The Emerging of a Powerful Mentorship. Farmers Weekly, 25, Erasmus D. (2013). Small-scale ostrich farming success in Eastern Cape. Farmer s Weekly, [Online]. Retrieved 9 November 2015, from za/article.aspx?id=44651&h=small-scale-ostrichfarming-success-in-eastern-cape. (2015). 29. Burgess M. (2008). Private Ownership Makes for Ostrich Success. Farmers Weekly, Hawes A. and Bates R. (2007b). Citrus Growers Association of Southern Africa Pilot Mentorship Programme Assessment Report. Hillcrest: Citrus Growers Association (CGA) of Southern Africa, Report No 2, 31. Botha J.A., Kiley J. and Truman K. (2007). Practising Education, Training and Development in South African Organisations. Cape Town: Juta. 32. Werner J.M. and DeSimone R.L. (2012). Human Resource Development. London: Thomson South- Western. 33. Cranwell-Ward J, Bossons P. and Gover S. (2004). Mentoring: A Henley Review of Best Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 34. Kotter J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 35. Hattingh M. Cotzee M. and Schrueder P. (2005). Implementing and Sustaining Mentoring Programmes: A Review of the Application of Best Practices in the South African Organisational Context. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(3), Murray M. and Owen M.A. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring. Oxford: Jossey-Bass. 37. Lewis G. (1996). The Mentoring Manager: Strategies for Fostering Talent and Spreading Knowledge. London: Pitman. 38. Clutterbuck D. and Ragin B.R. (2002). Mentoring and Diversity: An International Perspective. Oxford: Butterworths-Heinmann. 39. Fracaro K. (2002). Mentoring: Tool for Career Guidance. Supervision, 63(9), Litoselliti L. (2003). Using Focus Groups in Research. London: Continuum. 41. Israel G.D. and Gonzalez S.G. (2008). Using Focus Groups Interviews for Planning or Evaluating Extension Programs. Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) Extension, University of Florida, Publication no. AEC387. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from International Science Community Association 23